Communion with God

I am sorry for continuing to take you task, but several elements of your last post need clarification. I see what appear to be a bunch of non sequitors here:

Anyone who watches life on Earth realizes that life is created

Is that all life or just the life we see come and go on this planet? You didn’t capitalize life, so I assume you meant the daily stuff we see. I doesn’t follow that Life must have a beginning. I don’t know that “anyone who watches” will conclude what you insist they must.

If life is created so must inanimate matter as well be created.

I don’t see how this follows at all. What does the creation of life (if such be the case) have to do with the creation of inanimate matter?

Therefore God is the motivating force of the universe, the Creator.

I don’t see how this explains anything or even follows. All you have said is that life springs and springs again, therefore something incomprehensible accounts for it.

Have I missed something like an explanation here?

This is just a simple poetic way of saying what is actually is. In philosphy this could be stated as every effect has a cause.

Life is born and dies which we know to be a fact. Heavy elements such as gold and iron do not exist in gas giants and it is hypothesized that the collision of stars or some other form of gravity is neccesary to cause the hydrogen atoms to become helium atoms to become progressively heavy elements. This we term fusion which is what is causing the sun to send radiant energy to the Earth which in turn feeds plant life and perpetuates the cycle of life on Earth. This should be readily understandable, but- where did the original hydrogen atoms come from?

Naturally the argument against this is, what if it already existed?

So I guess what this really amounts to - is their truly anything that I actually know that exists if I have not seen it. And the answer to this is no. We are and always will be dependent on others to describe the reality of the environment they live it to us and then we can accept or not accept those descriptions. Did tsunami just roll through the Indian Ocean? We did not see it so it could not have happened. Images on tv? Doctored. Eye witness accounts? Liars.

At some point you have to accept on faith what the advertiser is trying to sell you, otherwise you never make a purchase.

This is just a simple poetic way of saying what is actually is. In philosphy this could be stated as every effect has a cause….

going back to grade-school or high school chemistry/science, we can all agree that atoms making up our immidiately detectable universe, contain a nucleus with surrounding electrons - (this is merely a cartesian analysis)

the size of the nucleus is about 4 orders of magnitude smaller than the size of the corresponding atom, i.e., a factor of about 10,000

for comparison, consider an atom to be enlarged to have a diameter of 100m (about the size of an american football field), then the nucleus would be about a cm in size - that is, about the size of a peanut! - yes, a peanut-sized nucleus in a football field-sized atom

these measurements are reality - measurements have been made scientifically - there is clearly no need for any “belief system” here - these are FACTS - we don’t need an “advertizer” to make us believe these facts - if we just understand how discoveries by scientists are carefully reviewed by peers before publishing - want more proof, then go to the laboratories yourself and ask to “see for yourself” - no need for believing in the message - simply understand it for what it is: FACT

now. if we further collapse all the vacuous space in the atoms in this planet, we can approximately reduce its size from its present 40 kilometer diameter to 0.4 km, or merely 400 meters - that is, if we could shrink all of the material of this planet into its nuclear constituents, it would be about the size of four football fields in diameter - this something that can be assumed to be possible in our universe and our minds can grasp this concept of collapsing a large amount of material into a small space

think that sounds incredible? hopefully not that incredible - anyway, try considering the further collapse of the nuclear material into the quarks and gluons that make up the nuclei - obviously, the size of the resulting collapsed material would considerably smaller still

scientists are now studing the components that make up nuclei in colliders throughout the world - discovering the behavior of quarks and other particles, mostly short-lived, like muons - and, of course, neutrinos are the smallest particle yet discovered and are detectable by a reaction of the neutrino with a particular isotope - it has been proven and is FACT

this knowledge gives us an idea of the complexity of our universe - we certainly don’t need to believe in a “creator”, but rather continue to delve into the world of matter, which also teaches us about the interactions at the scale of the universe

so, it certainly is not that far fetched to “believe” in a relatively compact primordial source of all atomic and nuclear material in our immediate universe - the question of a “creator” of our universe then becomes: “where is the primordial source, and how might it have been created itself?” - whatever created that primordial source certainly doesn’t have any human attributes and certainly does not judge mankind nor really “care” whether humanity survives on this planet or not - it is up to us humans to figure that out and save ourselves

This is just a simple poetic way of saying what is actually is. In philosphy this could be stated as every effect has a cause….

so, it certainly is not that far fetched to “believe” in a relatively compact primordial source of all atomic and nuclear material in our immediate universe - the question of a “creator” of our universe then becomes: “where is the primordial source, and how might it have been created itself?” - whatever created that primordial source certainly doesn’t have any human attributes and certainly does not judge mankind nor really “care” whether humanity survives on this planet or not - it is up to us humans to figure that out and save ourselves

So shall we get down to brass tacks. The question becomes - are all the people that now believe in God going to simply suspend believe? I may have lost track of posts, etc. but I do not understand how any human or group of humans is going to get any other group of humans to forgo their belief system. Right now the accepted and used method is at the point of a gun or under bomb sights. Or in the case of America through advertisers. The only method that will ever work is one in which existing concepts of God, for those that chose to believe in God, can evolve into one in which all humanity becomes identified as a part of the ‘in’ group and not ‘other’. And the problem once again cycles back to how to we, the hopefull and apparently few enlightened ones, convince the rest of humanity that the coarse that humanity seems to be on is very likely to finish raping the planet and finish exterminating any plant or animal that we do not eat, and in the end I suppose we will eat anything. I apologize for being a poor speller. Launguage has never been my strong point.

As far as advertisers are concerned - do you not realize a driving force in all our lives is the effect that advertisements have on our thinking processes? It is all propaganda - buy this product, does anyone realy need a hair blower or curling iron to survive. If so, how come there are so many humans on this planet that have never even seen a hair blower? Then the question becomes - how do we not destroy ourselves and the planet if all we truly seem to care about matters not a bit in the larger scheme of things?

The choice becomes a realtive one revolving around a choice and defiinition of terms, symbols or words. As well you must take into consideration of human minds that are not mature. How do you deal with a five ar eight year old child that parents were just killed in a car accident, should we say ‘your parents have gone to be with God’ or should we say ‘your parents were just active dirt and now they they are once again soil’. Are you going to be the one to carry the message to the children? Do you have no empathy for living things?

Though, as you say, you cannot force-feed anyone, you can, however, make ‘em hungry. In fact, as responsible citizens and lovers of truth, we cannot wait for hosts to become susceptible. More to the point, as Sam points out, the world is much too small, and we may not have time to wait for a change. We should be proactive and create the audience for our wares.

Though, as you say, you cannot force-feed anyone, you can, however, make ‘em hungry. In fact, as responsible citizens and lovers of truth, we cannot wait for hosts to become susceptible. More to the point, as Sam points out, the world is much too small, and we may not have time to wait for a change. We should be proactive and create the audience for our wares.

(Though I’m not exactly sure how to do that)

When the oil runs out or price escalates to 200 hundred dollars a barrel there will be a huge audience. It may not be in my lifetime but who says the ground work is wasted.

You would think having faith would remove fear, but its the very loss of their faith people fear. They are clinging to it like children to their Teddy Bear and will get violent when you want to take it away.

I don’t think we should be preaching to people what they should or should not believe. That is not the moral high ground. I am all about just controling damage.

The choice becomes a realtive one revolving around a choice and defiinition of terms, symbols or words. As well you must take into consideration of human minds that are not mature. How do you deal with a five ar eight year old child that parents were just killed in a car accident, should we say ‘your parents have gone to be with God’ or should we say ‘your parents were just active dirt and now they they are once again soil’. Are you going to be the one to carry the message to the children? Do you have no empathy for living things?

ouch!, that’s a tough question

perhaps, since imagery is so valuable to “young minds” (not to mention ostensibly adult RR minds as well!), we (concientious adults) can project what we envision to be the edge of the universe, where the primordial sources exist, to be a complex assortment of primordial sources - only one of these sources burped out our 20-50 billion light-year universe - that same source has and continues to burp out universes - comparable to a foam made from an active chemical mixture in which each foam “bubble” is a universe - then we can project that there is a “heaven” or “final resting place” somewhere in that mixture of primordial sources where the dead or dying eventually “end up” - perhaps even to gather as the family that existed on earth (such as the silliness that mormons seem to believe) - or our “souls” can be released as neutrinos and other forms of energy to all directions, eventually collecting and recombining somewhere?

this version is certainly more defensible than the nebulous heaven/hell nonsense taught by the RR

about advertisers, Lawrence - concientious adults as us should not be mislead by commercials and advertisements - for example, although VIOXX was well advertised, we could easily have done a little homework to invesitgate COX-2 inhibitors and read/learn about it ourselves (thanks to our “free society”!) - we should not succumb to such ads blindly

however, RR are clearly easily fooled by advertisements - they do not bother to investigate and learn - they are afraid to investigate because they were afraid to study the arts and sciences in school - it was much easier for them to pick up a bible and interpret it in any way they could, as they learned more words in the english language, and as they made more ridiculous analogies between bible passages and reality that they could not do by applying the SCIENTIFIC METHOD

so, let’s not assume that advertisements carry such a significant impact on our lives, unless we let them (some of them, of course, are quite amusing and effective though)

are all the people that now believe in God going to simply suspend belief?

I don’t think that is possible. Not in our lifetimes. That is why governments should be strictly separated from religion. Religion can be allowed to exist only under the rule of law in its respective countries. Preferably these countries should be democratically governed.

We are witnessing a phenomenon right now in Saudi Arabia, where Islamic extremists are attacking the government with bombs. It will be hard for an Islamic government to punish people who follow to the letter the laws of Islam, which the bombers claim they are doing. Where this will end, who knows.

We have a case here in NYC of a lawyer who has defended a number of Muslim extremists. She is now accused of aiding and abetting terrorism, and it is clear that she has overstepped the lines of law several times in her enthusiasm for helping her clients. I suspect she will go to jail.

We have a case here in NYC of a lawyer who has defended a number of Muslim extremists. She is now accused of aiding and abetting terrorism, and it is clear that she has overstepped the lines of law several times in her enthusiasm for helping her clients. I suspect she will go to jail.

that is certainly a sad state of things - reminds me of how the people of Cuba have been treated these past 30-40 years

assuming that the USA had been made up of concientious knowledge-seeking people, it would have been expected that we would have studied arabic and the koran to learn about these muslim extremists, especially 3 years after 9/11

alas, our country does not generally want to learn arabic nor anything about the koran, except what preachers like fat john hagee who spews hate about the muslims - what a jerk

our soldiers don’t know or learn arabic, and they especially don’t read the koran to learn anything about the culture of their adversaries - instead, we will be extending our english measurement system to iraq (miles-per-hour, gallons, inches/feet, degrees fahrenheit), since, as a nation, we refuse to accept the metric system that has been adopted throughout the world, even canada and mexico

to correct this unfortunate course taken by our country (and particularly the ignorant path taken by bush), we must educate ourselves - start using metric! - learn it!, so we can understand when someone says: “it’s 40 degrees here in sri lanka and 1000 kilometers of our coastline has been destroyed, and our vehicles can only travel 10 kilometers per hour to reach us - please help!”

[quote author=“fjlomnix”]
so, let’s not assume that advertisements carry such a significant impact on our lives, unless we let them (some of them, of course, are quite amusing and effective though)

Although you may wish or hope or believe that advertisements do not effect you or us they definitely do and more so to minds that have not spent years filtering out the trash. And the insidious part is most of the time we are not even conscious of it.

As an example, even though I am fully aware of the power of advertising and do not watch an excessive amount of television, the ads for diamonds bothered me this Christmas. They imply that if I truly loved my wife I would buy her a diamond or diamonds, yet I do not have the financial means to do so at this point and therefore, by implication, I have failed to prove my love.

Even though I understand what the purpose of these commercials is they still succeeded in making me feel inadequate as was there intentional purpose. But if I had bought diamonds on a credit card I would have felt good about myself and would have reassured my wife that I do indeed love her - at least until the bill came due.

lawrence: in our market-driven economy (this is generally true among the nearly 200 countries of this planet), advertising is one of the major tools used to sell products, as you may agree

however, in the diamond commercial example, a cartesian analysis (i.e., according to descartes) might lead one to investigate stone/gems in general and, perhaps all “valuable” or “precious” commodities - the analysis might suggest that a lump of plutonium might be far more valuable than a diamond, especially since both are producible by artificial means

but, both the suggestion that diamonds convince a spouse of “affection”, as encouraged by the debeers ad, and the cartesian analysis suggesting greater value in a lump of plutonium, are WRONG

my point is that ads should be scrutinized, just as cartesian analysis should be carefully applied as well - in either case, knowledge is the key, not merely cartesian analysis as one of your previous posts may have suggested

[quote author=“fjlomnix”]lawrence: in our market-driven economy (this generally true among the nearly 200 countries of this planet), advertising is one of the major tools used to sell products, as you may agree

however, in the diamond commercial example, a cartesian analysis (i.e., according to descartes) might lead one to investigate stone/gems in general and, perhaps all “valuable” or “precious” commodities - the analysis suggest that a lump of plutonium might be more far valuable than a diamond, especially since both are producible by artificial means

thus, both the suggestion that diamonds convince a spouse of “affection”, as encouraged by the debeers ad, and the cartesian analysis suggesting greater value in a lump of plutonium, are WRONG

my point is that ads should be scrutinized, just as cartesian analysis should be carefully applied - in either case, knowledge is the key

What you say is true.

The point I was simply trying to make is that most individuals do not engage in a critical and careful analysis of every bit of advertising that they are subjected to.

And - most advertising is not even close to honest. I see this as a problem because it is hard for the common individual to know what is the true from what is false.

And - advertising is not aimed at reason it is aimed at emotional response.

And - not all people are in touch with their subconscious. Many block out emotional response with a wall. And there it festers until it is ready to explode in violent release.

lawrence: that’s why we must educate our progeny and future citizens to conduct critical thinking routinely - it becomes quite easy when they have become used to it

I personally like to see commercials generally to see the direction of our markets, and, maybe public perception as well - some commercials are quite entertaining, even though I may not patronize the sponsors - the “problems” with faulty advertiising can often be spotted by the critical thinkers (I think) - there books that discuss this “problem” - however, the ad writers/designers have only limited budgets to research their ads before they go public - they are not researchers and they are not paid to be - it is OUR “duty” (i.e., the ad “targets”) to decide whether to patronize the ad sponsors or not